Live data from Hacker News

First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

sciencealert.com

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#21
Another write-up that's maybe more straightforward: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/vacuum-birefringence-04410...

prepublish link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08323 pdf: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.08323v2.pdf

// Edit: And maybe someone can explain this to me, but the "polarization in -> polarization out" artist's rendering isn't in their paper. Where did it come from? Is it showing the example of what would be happening if the effect was happening at 100% ?

http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge3/image_4410_2e-Vacuum...

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give me some hints on what virtual particles actually are if its not too complicated? I keep reading that they are not actually real particles, only useful for calculations/as a simple way to understand what is going on. How does something like Hawking radiation work if they are not real particles?

The main challenge in understanding QM is the fact that we are all intelligent animals whose brains developed in what is for all practical purposes a classic newtonian universe. When you were one year old, crawling on the floor at your parents' house, your brain was learning to operate within the realm of classic physics. In such a universe, things are very clear-cut. An object must be either here, or there. Somethin…

Thanks! That's a really nice explanation. I keep forgetting that particles don't really exist so much as a wave function does in the Copenhagen interpretation, so that gives me a new way to think about virtual particles, and helps tie it in with the article. Also a lot of other nice tidbits in this explanation for me to mull over...

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give me some hints on what virtual particles actually are if its not too complicated? I keep reading that they are not actually real particles, only useful for calculations/as a simple way to understand what is going on. How does something like Hawking radiation work if they are not real particles?

The main challenge in understanding QM is the fact that we are all intelligent animals whose brains developed in what is for all practical purposes a classic newtonian universe. When you were one year old, crawling on the floor at your parents' house, your brain was learning to operate within the realm of classic physics. In such a universe, things are very clear-cut. An object must be either here, or there. Somethin…

>That's what electrons, and photons, and neutrons, etc, are. [...] They are bundles of probability amplitudes smeared out over space and time intervals. This is not a metaphor. This is stark reality.

Aren't you describing a representation of atomic particles, not the particles themselves?

Edit: I'm not looking to get into a discussion about what constitutes "existence". I am just wondering if you are conflating a scientific-mathematical model for a thing with the thing itself.

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#24
post #6
post #2

"In the classical physics of Newton and Einstein, the vacuum of space is entirely empty, but the theory of quantum mechanics assumes something very different. According to quantum electrodynamics (QED) - a quantum theory that describes how light and matter interact - it’s predicted that space is actually full of 'virtual particles' that pop in and out of existence and mess with the activity of light particles (photon…

No. Quantum field theories and their vacuum state has nothing to do with pilot wave theory (PWT). PWT is oddly popular amongst internet people, but is just a mathematical transformation of the Schrodinger equation, with some associated interpretation. It makes no additional predictions.

I wonder. In the Em-drive paper the NASA scientists seem to point to PWT for a possible explanation. If it didn't make a difference, then why should they have done that?

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#25
Misleading article. Einstein is responsible for a lot of quantum statistics and quantum mechanics.

Also, this isn't really anything new from some new theory.

It's all contained within QFT and the uncertainty principle.

More or less, this happens at the LHC when protons are smashed together, forcing momentum energy to be converted into rest energy, leading to the creation of short-lived particles from the vacuum (provided that quantum numbers, energy, momentum, and angular momentum are conserved).

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give me some hints on what virtual particles actually are if its not too complicated? I keep reading that they are not actually real particles, only useful for calculations/as a simple way to understand what is going on. How does something like Hawking radiation work if they are not real particles?

The main challenge in understanding QM is the fact that we are all intelligent animals whose brains developed in what is for all practical purposes a classic newtonian universe. When you were one year old, crawling on the floor at your parents' house, your brain was learning to operate within the realm of classic physics. In such a universe, things are very clear-cut. An object must be either here, or there. Somethin…

You mix facts about the mathematics with opinions about interpretation and philosophical positions pretty freely, and that equivocation in science communication is what puts a lot of people off QM.

Scientists are too comfortable presenting philosophical positions or opinion as fact just because it's consistent with a model.

See the split between Copengahen, MWI, and Bohmian views about how to interpret the underlying calculations.

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#27
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Vacuum birefringence is understandable from a perfectly conventional understanding of quantum field theory, and does not remotely require anything about the pilot wave idea to be true. Every quantum field theory, including QED, has a roiling vacuum of virtual particles, whether you hold an orthodox view or not. Source: am physicist ;P

Can you give me some hints on what virtual particles actually are if its not too complicated? I keep reading that they are not actually real particles, only useful for calculations/as a simple way to understand what is going on. How does something like Hawking radiation work if they are not real particles?

In Many Worlds virtual particles are simply other universes (other parts of Hilbert space) that have electrons in different positions. They are nearby enough to contribute some amplitude to have an observable effect. Edit a word.

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main challenge in understanding QM is the fact that we are all intelligent animals whose brains developed in what is for all practical purposes a classic newtonian universe. When you were one year old, crawling on the floor at your parents' house, your brain was learning to operate within the realm of classic physics. In such a universe, things are very clear-cut. An object must be either here, or there. Somethin…

You mix facts about the mathematics with opinions about interpretation and philosophical positions pretty freely, and that equivocation in science communication is what puts a lot of people off QM. Scientists are too comfortable presenting philosophical positions or opinion as fact just because it's consistent with a model. See the split between Copengahen, MWI, and Bohmian views about how to interpret the underlying…

Meh. It was just an intuitive description for laypeople, not a dissertation on the differences between Copenhagen and many-worlds.

Yes, I do take sides - but only for ease of explanation. The "sides" I'm taking are not even the ones I actually prefer.

Get people started first, then they can read rigorous analyses on their own.

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main challenge in understanding QM is the fact that we are all intelligent animals whose brains developed in what is for all practical purposes a classic newtonian universe. When you were one year old, crawling on the floor at your parents' house, your brain was learning to operate within the realm of classic physics. In such a universe, things are very clear-cut. An object must be either here, or there. Somethin…

>That's what electrons, and photons, and neutrons, etc, are. [...] They are bundles of probability amplitudes smeared out over space and time intervals. This is not a metaphor. This is stark reality. Aren't you describing a representation of atomic particles, not the particles themselves? Edit: I'm not looking to get into a discussion about what constitutes "existence". I am just wondering if you are conflating a sci…

> you are conflating a scientific-mathematical model for a thing with the thing itself

Bohm would say yes. Others would say no.

Re: First real evidence of a strange quantum distortion in empty space

#30
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Vacuum birefringence is understandable from a perfectly conventional understanding of quantum field theory, and does not remotely require anything about the pilot wave idea to be true. Every quantum field theory, including QED, has a roiling vacuum of virtual particles, whether you hold an orthodox view or not. Source: am physicist ;P

Can you give me some hints on what virtual particles actually are if its not too complicated? I keep reading that they are not actually real particles, only useful for calculations/as a simple way to understand what is going on. How does something like Hawking radiation work if they are not real particles?

(Apologies to Quantum Field Theorist for the gross simplification below.)

I'm going to assume you know about basic calculus and Taylor series; if not, I'll explain what these are in a subsequent answer if you are interested.

In Quantum Field Theory, we cannot do exact calculations ... only (better and better) approximations. The way we do these calculations is very much similar to doing a Taylor series in Calculus. However, the calculations involved many complicated multi-dimensional integrals

Feynman found out a way to represent these complicated mathematical expressions that occured in those approximate calculations as pictures (known as Feynman diagrams). In these pictures, one could represent (real) particles interacting as lines (straight, curvy, etc., depending on the rules) that end in open space..

As we increased the order of expansion in the approximation (think of powers of the variable in a Taylor series), the terms corresponded to more and more diagrams, each increasing in complexity with the order of expansion.

Well, it turned out that, using the Feynman rules for translating mathematical expressions into parts of a pictures, that lines (straight, curvy) similar to that of "real" particles appeared inside the diagrams; however, these lines were all connected to others and did not end in open space: they do not correspond to any particles that we can measure directly.

However, we can think of these lines as representing "virtual" particles, that we cannot probe directly.

One thing to keep in mind (and that many that mention the "virtual particle" explanations often forget to mention): these diagrams are, in a very strong sense, an artifact of the way we do calculations using the best approximation techniques we know. These are useful computational tools. But individual diagrams should not be thought of as representing an actual precise interaction that is taking place. And virtual particles are just a way to make a connection between what we think we know ("real" particles interacting) and what our approximative way of calculating things give us.

Post reply on HN